One word they have consistently redefined is atheist. Most people define an atheist as someone who doesn’t believe in God or someone who believes there is no God. Am I right? However, just like the word evolution, atheists get in a huff when you don’t define atheist the same way they do. They claim an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God. In other words, they say they’re not trying to make any claim about the existence of God; they’re just expressing their lack of belief in Him. Hmmm. Something about that doesn’t sound right.
First, there’s already a word to describe when people are unsure about the existence of God; it’s called agnosticism. How is the atheists’ twisted definition of atheism substantially different from agnosticism? There must be a reason they prefer using such a vague definition rather than adopting the already existing term. I’ve asked many and they usually try to draw the distinction that agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known, while they simply lack a belief that He exists. It sounds like a case of splitting hairs.
When people resort to equivocating over the meanings of words, they begin to open themselves up to contradiction. Do they know God doesn’t exist? Do they only think He doesn’t exist? Do they admit He might exist? Why do they object when people say He does exist? You can see the difficulty with their position. They want to attack theism without having to defend their position.
Frank Turek has used this analogy to expose the weakness of the modern definition of atheism: There are two detectives investigating a murder. There are fingerprints, DNA, and a murder weapon that all point to one suspect. Detective A is certain the suspect is guilty. Detective B looks at the same facts and says he doesn’t believe the suspect is guilty. So Detective A asks, “Then what about the gun, the blood, the fingerprints, and all the other evidence? How do you explain all that?” Detective B only replies, “I don’t have to explain it. I just don’t believe it’s him.”
I know it’s not a perfect analogy, but do you see the comparison? You can show an atheist all the evidence we have for God: we can discuss the historical certainty of Jesus, we can point to the ontological necessity of a supernatural First Cause, we can appeal to the existence of absolute morality, and the atheist can just sit cross armed saying, “That’s not enough.” He offers no rebuttal, he doesn’t concede an inch, he simply just doesn’t believe. In the case of the detectives, there is a dead body and there is evidence that points to one suspect; why should we not consider what is possibly the most likely explanation? Likewise, why should we deny the plausible explanation that God created everything and default to the incredible belief that nothing created everything?
Psalm 19:1 says, The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. When I look at the starry night and see the grandeur of the universe, I consider its complexity, design, and beauty. Knowing that God created it doesn’t end scientific inquiry; rather it makes me wonder more. It tells me something about God. I understand the cause of the universe must be something outside of the universe, something “supernatural” by definition. God is the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover that Aristotle argued must exist. He must be greater than all burning stars. He must be eternal and timeless, to have created time. He must be omniscient and personal, to have created the mind and consciousness. Knowing God exists helps me to make sense of the universe.
Everyone has a worldview. There is a method by which we see the world and make sense of it. For someone to deny that God is behind the universe, he must necessarily believe that nature is all there is. They may claim they don’t believe God created everything, but they don’t have any alternative explanation. They must necessarily believe in some other “undivine” creator. They may claim God isn’t the moral Lawgiver, but they must have some basis to believe something is right or wrong. They acknowledge how things are but will not consider why they are. When they do consider how and why anything exists, they intentionally ignore what could be the most likely explanation.
The problem for the atheists is their disbelief is actually their belief. They pretend to be blank slates looking at the evidence but are committed to naturalism. They somehow think it’s more intellectual to assume nothing created everything than God having created everything.
In closing, read these telling words of Richard Lewontin:
Evolutionists ... have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
